Talk:MechWarrior Online

Line Developer statements[edit]

The following is archived here for reference. Please do not change.

Herb Beas ruling[edit]

On 20 November, 2011 BattleTech Line Developer Herbert A. Beas gave this reply to an inquiry about the upcoming game's canonicity in an official chat:

<Frabby1>: MW Online: Does this project have any impact on the universe development? Does it contribute new, original (as in, previously unpublished) Canon?

<Habeas2>: Frabby1 - Absolutely none. We at Catalyst Game Labs are presently under no pressure to adapt our product line and canon for the MW Online system. As ever, electronic and print games run largely autonomously, with one having no direct impact on the other.

(End quote)

Randall Bills ruling[edit]

On 13 February, 2016 Randall N. Bills (as "Precentor Martial"), who had since replaced Herb Beas as Line Developer, gave this reply to an inquiry about the upcoming game's canonicity on the "ComStar: The Global BattleTech Community" forum for the BattleTech game by Harebrained Schemes, who were working on their BattleTech in cooperation with the CGL and Piranha Games staff:

<Frabby>: Since you happen to wear the BattleTech Line Developer hat now and thus have the power to decide over BattleTech Canon (on the CGL side of things), does your work on MWO and HBS-BT mean the Hero 'Mech fluff in the former and the campaign storyline in the latter are canonical for the core (CGL) BatteTech lore?

<Precentor Martial>: For the Hero 'Mechs, absolutely. And that is the intention with the HBS campaign storyline as well. -Randall

(End quote)

Talk page[edit]

Mechwarrior: 3015[edit]

i have heard that the original teaser was to be called "Mechwarrior: 3015" from several (admittedly unreliable sources), can anyone confirm this? - FellBlade 11:55, 7 June 2012 (PDT)

Incorrect. At the time of the release of the trailer, Smith & Timker said in interviews that the projected game was to be named "MechWarrior", without any addition. They reasoned that this title would mark the game as one of the MechWarrior series, while at the same time omitting the numeral would indicate a fresh start (their reasoning, not mine). MechWarrior: 3015 seems to be a fan-created apellation. It's not official. Frabby 12:25, 7 June 2012 (PDT)

"Mechwarrior 5" and Mechwarrior online[edit]

I have seen these two games (the teaser for mw5 and the ftp multi-player game MWO) grouped together very often, i find that this creates confusion for the casual observer and i personally see them as 2 separate games, if its alright i would like to separate them by creating a page for the (never made) Mechwarrior 5 (or mechwarrior 3015?) and update this page with current information for MWO. - FellBlade

Fair enough. I recommend "MechWarrior (MWO predecessor)" or something like that for the article name, because "MechWarrior" was the official title; redirects should be put in place for common fan names such as MW5. Frabby 12:25, 7 June 2012 (PDT)

Should we even bother updating the page?[edit]

Notice most of the stuff, while arguably true (sadly), isn't 100% current and the write up is pretty heavy on the opinion, not the fact. For example project related names are way out of date and mechs link to generic pages where as other games, see the Blazing Aces have way more of an actual wiki feel. --SixStringSamurai (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2014 (PST)

By all means, if you see something as wrong, go ahead and change it; remember to be bold! Past versions of articles are always kept in the page's history, so you can't really hurt anything. -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2014 (PST)
Indeed as Bob said feel free to update and correct information, I often do minor updates to this page based entirely on what pop up on the MWO home page (Not played since about October 2014 as the play bored me to death) So maybe an active players input would be vastly more useful?--Dmon (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2014 (PDT)
I contacted some MWO fans on a forum and they might help out; we'll just have to wait and see. -BobTheZombie (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2014 (PDT)

Controversy Section?[edit]

An anonymous user tried addressing the "Pay to Win" aspect of the game, and that reminded me: Should we have a section over the controversy around MWO? For wikipedia articles, they often have such sections, and I think it'd be a good idea to add it in an effort to truly be neutral, as PGI has, at the very least, not been perfect when dealing with this game and its community. Let's try to not turn this into an argument, but what do you guys think of this? -BobTheZombie (talk)

I'm in favor of this idea, as I feel people should get some information on all aspects of a game they find interest in. Such a section could also be applied to MWLL, as there has been some controversy there as well, but that isn't particularly important right now.--Raven 2C (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2014 (PST)
We can certainly go back to that, but I had no idea there was controversy there. I just believe that PGI really wronged and alienated some people, so to keep the article truely neutral, we should include some level headed information about this. I'm really not an expert about what went on, so perhaps we could bring people in from both sides and get a balanced account of what happened? -BobTheZombie (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2014 (PST)
Bringing people in would definitely help. There should be some caution taken as well, however, as there are those that have extremely strong opinions on PGI's handling of MWO and its playerbase, especially with PGI's earlier days. Plenty of people have very different opinions, as far as I know. This might have changed with PGI's dropping of IGP (its publisher) and releasing updates more frequently, maybe? Would be cool to interview some players, I think, and then neutrally write out the core thoughts of those players on this subject.--Raven 2C (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2014 (PST)
I'd be really, really careful about adding in a contraversy section, because they have a nasty tendency to very quickly escalate into a slanging match involving a small number of very opinionated individuals, and it becomes very difficult to distinguish one person's burning issue from something of concern to the wider player base.
If you're going to have a contraversy section, I'd recommend you don't interview individual players, because it'll be extremely hard to identify those who reflect the concerns of a large group of people while still being capable of remaining dispassionate and independent about the issues. You'd be on somewhat safer ground if you can find cited articles in trade journals or the equivalent where someone has already done the due diligence check to make sure that what they're reporting is accurate. If you start interviewing players, then you're also morally obligated to interview PGI and any other involved parties, and we can end up in seriously hot water if Sarna comes to be seen as having been defamatory at any point.
If you're going to add a contraversy section, I think you're going to need to look at protecting the page, and adding detail specifically via editorial agreement from multiple editors - that's just my tuppence worth, but I'd definitely put the idea out for comment to some of the other editors here, and given the significance of MWO within the fanbase, it'd be worth running it past Nic to make sure he's happy with it too. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2014 (PST)
I feel as though it'd be best to wait for the dust to settle before trying to tackle this. In addition, I don't think we could afford to Protect this page as the vast majority of its edits are from anonymous people. I feel that it can wait for now. -BobTheZombie (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2014 (PST)